Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 23:04:07 GMT
Hey @metroman, I often like to say trees aren't a valid reason to keep a route SD. Cut 'em down!!  But them look up to what happened to that ex-First TE on route 91... Hit a low branch and got deroofed, and that was on the line of route! So trees are no joke unfortunately Yep I agree if overhanging branches are too thick then yes that’s an issue, there was no denial of that. The branch in question must have been sizeable enough to cause that damage but TfL’s responsibility is to have detected it on route tests etc and manage them accordingly. We know with recent consultations that TfL are more than happy to chop trees to meet their goal and offer a token gesture promising to look for somewhere to replace it, which we seldom hear about. Most overhanging branches will simply be brushed aside by buses. It’s deciding if those branches present a risk that should be the debate IMHO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 23:07:42 GMT
As for residents, 316 is another classic. Can do DD easily, actually But will it stop Metroline (or any other Operator) from running a DD if they need to sub a SD and no other SDs are readily available? Do they even consider residential objections when deciding this or do they only ensure a DD is route tested and cleared? |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Dec 23, 2017 23:14:53 GMT
As for residents, 316 is another classic. Can do DD easily, actually But will it stop Metroline (or any other Operator) from running a DD if they need to sub a SD and no other SDs are readily available? Do they even consider residential objections when deciding this or do they only ensure a DD is route tested and cleared? Yes it does stop them - all 316 DDs curtail to North Kensington! The only time they didn't was the old carnival route (316Y), where they diverted away from Latimer Road anyway, that's the banned bit, and 1-2 days when route was diverted away due to road works - then the deckers made it to White City but not full mileage. Madness, I kid you not |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 23:19:03 GMT
But will it stop Metroline (or any other Operator) from running a DD if they need to sub a SD and no other SDs are readily available? Do they even consider residential objections when deciding this or do they only ensure a DD is route tested and cleared? Yes it does stop them - all 316 DDs curtail to North Kensington! The only time they didn't was the old carnival route (316Y), where they diverted away from Latimer Road, the banned bit, and 1-2 days when route was diverted away due to road works. Madness, I kid you not I’m fairly sure I’ve seen a DD at Westfield though, and not in the summer either! Well, if there is some law preventing DDs running down residential streets I think I’d rather this thread locked and buried... too bloody depressing to consider this possibility 😭 I’m really hoping it’s a Metroline and/or TfL courtesy. If it’s not a legal issue then 316 gets my full DD allocation 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Dec 23, 2017 23:22:22 GMT
Yes it does stop them - all 316 DDs curtail to North Kensington! The only time they didn't was the old carnival route (316Y), where they diverted away from Latimer Road, the banned bit, and 1-2 days when route was diverted away due to road works. Madness, I kid you not I’m fairly sure I’ve seen a DD at Westfield though, and not in the summer either! Well, if there is some law preventing DDs running down residential streets I think I’d rather this thread locked and buried... too bloody depressing to consider this possibility 😭 I’m really hoping it’s a Metroline and/or TfL courtesy. If it’s not a legal issue then 316 gets my full DD allocation 😂 Some more for you to full your list out: 339 and W15: Passes a low bridge on Grove Green Road, Leytonstone. 362: Grove Road and Brocket Way are narrow and tight. 366: Narrow Roads and Parked Vehicles on Sunnyside Road and Eton Road. 410: Has various narrow roads on routes such as Davidson Road and Sylvan Road areas. 488: Passes a Low Bridge on Fairfield Road, Bow and Kenworthy Road, Homerton. 665: Low Trees in the Berrylands area. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Dec 23, 2017 23:25:34 GMT
I’m fairly sure I’ve seen a DD at Westfield though, and not in the summer either! Well, if there is some law preventing DDs running down residential streets I think I’d rather this thread locked and buried... too bloody depressing to consider this possibility 😭 I’m really hoping it’s a Metroline and/or TfL courtesy. If it’s not a legal issue then 316 gets my full DD allocation 😂 Westfields DD 316s were either Notting Hill buses or diverted ones. This May was the case when scenario #2 happened and thanks to a diversion on the entire route the deckers dodged Latimer Road and made it to the "other end". flic.kr/p/V7E27pWell residents demanded either the route is SD or they will not "have" it run. Lolol. There was an article somewhere with them calling buses killers, blah blah etc. D'oh! And have I mentioned that double-decker 295 actually goes there also? Yeah  That reminds me, another nearby route, the 228, passes under a low bridge near East Acton. Unless that's already been mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 23, 2017 23:28:44 GMT
Something I won’t compromise on though... residents! Sorry but if a route requires deckers it requires deckers. The needs of the many have to come before the needs of a few disgruntled residents. That’s not me having a go, but this is a forum for enthusiasts and there is no safety element to buses with an additional floor operating past buildings. As such I’ll have to disregard suggestions regarding residents. Unless there is a specific law which provides a banning order for such vehicles (I bet I’ve opened a can of worms) Easy saying that if you're not one of the residents. However this does seem to be very much a London thing, elsewhere I've been on double deckers along residential roads and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 23, 2017 23:33:25 GMT
I’m fairly sure I’ve seen a DD at Westfield though, and not in the summer either! Well, if there is some law preventing DDs running down residential streets I think I’d rather this thread locked and buried... too bloody depressing to consider this possibility 😭 I’m really hoping it’s a Metroline and/or TfL courtesy. If it’s not a legal issue then 316 gets my full DD allocation 😂 Westfields DD 316s were either Notting Hill buses or diverted ones. This May was the case when my scenario #2 happened and thanks to a diversion on the entire route the deckers dodged Latimer Road and made it to the "other end". flic.kr/p/V7E27pWell residents demanded either the route is SD or they will not "have" it run. Lolol. There was an article somewhere with them calling buses killers, blah blah etc. D'oh! And have I mentioned that double-decker 295 actually goes there also? Yeah That reminds me, another nearby route, the 228, passes under a low bridge near East Acton. Unless that's already been mentioned. There was a story about an MP stopping double deckers on the 316 but this turned out to be a load of tosh. Is it just that TfL have decided in their wisdom that single deckers are adequate for the 316? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 23, 2017 23:43:04 GMT
Hey @metroman, I often like to say trees aren't a valid reason to keep a route SD. Cut 'em down!! But them look up to what happened to that ex-First TE on route 91... Hit a low branch and got deroofed, and that was on the line of route! So trees are no joke unfortunately As for residents, 316 is another classic. Can do DD easily, actually It costs money to cut trees down and with all the cuts to councils, pruning trees is likely to be low down the agenda. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 23:48:48 GMT
Something I won’t compromise on though... residents! Sorry but if a route requires deckers it requires deckers. The needs of the many have to come before the needs of a few disgruntled residents. That’s not me having a go, but this is a forum for enthusiasts and there is no safety element to buses with an additional floor operating past buildings. As such I’ll have to disregard suggestions regarding residents. Unless there is a specific law which provides a banning order for such vehicles (I bet I’ve opened a can of worms) Easy saying that if you're not one of the residents. However this does seem to be very much a London thing, elsewhere I've been on double deckers along residential roads and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. It’s easy for me to say because if you decide to live on a road with single deck buses you can’t expect them to necessarily stay that way. My sympathy is reserved for those where roads previously unserved by buses suddenly get one on their doorstep. (EDIT and even then, this is London so anything is possible) Not trying to sound mean to residents (although I’m sure it comes across that way) but I don’t get what the big deal is with DDs... the biggest one I hear is that people can see through your windows. I’ve never been on a DD and hoped to find something interesting by looking into properties and I can’t imagine other folk would either. Just sounds completely irrational |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 23, 2017 23:50:50 GMT
Something I won’t compromise on though... residents! Sorry but if a route requires deckers it requires deckers. The needs of the many have to come before the needs of a few disgruntled residents. That’s not me having a go, but this is a forum for enthusiasts and there is no safety element to buses with an additional floor operating past buildings. As such I’ll have to disregard suggestions regarding residents. Unless there is a specific law which provides a banning order for such vehicles (I bet I’ve opened a can of worms) Easy saying that if you're not one of the residents. However this does seem to be very much a London thing, elsewhere I've been on double deckers along residential roads and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. If given the chance, residents will find any excuse to moan about anything. Some things are plausible but objecting to double deckers isn’t a plausible point at all. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 24, 2017 0:05:26 GMT
It’s easy for me to say because if you decide to live on a road with single deck buses you can’t expect them to necessarily stay that way. My sympathy is reserved for those where roads previously unserved by buses suddenly get one on their doorstep. Not trying to sound mean to residents (although I’m sure it comes across that way) but I don’t get what the big deal is with DDs... the biggest one I hear is that people can see through your windows. I’ve never been on a DD and hoped to find something interesting by looking into properties and I can’t imagine other folk would either. Just sounds completely irrational Of course it is irrational. People feel as if their "personal space" and privacy is somehow being invaded which causes utterly irrational responses. The clap trap that get puts forward by people (almost always a vocal minority) when a bus route is proposed to run in an area is unbelieveable. People don't apply any logic to what they say but they think they are being stunningly clever by saying their houses will be vibrated to bits, thieves and drug addicts will come to their area by bus (as if such people can't walk or have access to cars anyway), that children will be run down, that they'll be gassed in their houses by the exhaust fumes and any parked cars will be smashed to bits. The fact that they might actually benefit from having a bus route nearby or that their friends, neighbours and others in the area would benefit hugely from a regular bus service never enters their head. It is one of the most depressing things about London's set up that "gobsh*tes" manage all too often to stymie the wishes of others. The most famous case in recent years was the 324 whose presence near Stanmore was going to cause the world to end and Stanmore to disappear to the centre of the earth (I exaggerate only slightly) if you believed the detractors. Thankfully the majority who wanted a bus service actually spoke up and got their voice heard and TfL listened. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 24, 2017 0:15:25 GMT
Easy saying that if you're not one of the residents. However this does seem to be very much a London thing, elsewhere I've been on double deckers along residential roads and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. It’s easy for me to say because if you decide to live on a road with single deck buses you can’t expect them to necessarily stay that way. My sympathy is reserved for those where roads previously unserved by buses suddenly get one on their doorstep. (EDIT and even then, this is London so anything is possible) Not trying to sound mean to residents (although I’m sure it comes across that way) but I don’t get what the big deal is with DDs... the biggest one I hear is that people can see through your windows. I’ve never been on a DD and hoped to find something interesting by looking into properties and I can’t imagine other folk would either. Just sounds completely irrational I think it's more to do with people on the top deck being able to see over walls and fences, lack of privacy etc, some are irrational some are reasonable and I think each case has to be judged on its own merit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 0:18:07 GMT
Haha Mr snoggle you do make me laugh in a good way. Interesting point about the car issue. I used to park my car on a road that buses ran down, and I couldn’t park there anymore. Not because of the buses, it was the idiots in cars and delivery trucks I couldn’t trust. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 0:22:56 GMT
sid but again I don’t see the big whoop. People don’t sit on the top deck specifically to look at people in their gardens etc. Buses don’t generally ‘hang around’ either so I can’t see what people are trying to hide with regard to privacy. I think drones for example are much more of a threat to privacy than a moving bus
|
|
